STS-114 Mission Update Thread (Part 2)

[emerrill]

Is it true that there was discussion perviously of changing the rule back to 3 of 4, after the single point failure was fixed, but that it was put on the back buner til after STS-114?<br /><br />Thanks<br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emerrill]

"There have been many discusions about changing back to 3 of 4 and they always end up with 4 of 4"<br /><br />A quote from a spaceflight now article seems to imply that they were simply waiting to make a final until later on, when things were 'calmer' (while of course, keeping it at 4 of 4 for now):<br /><br /><br /><br />"The discussion which we had briefly before getting into the launch count is, are we ready to go back to three-of-four as the launch commit criteria?" Hale explained today. "And folks said, we're really busy trying to return to flight, we've got a lot of work on our plate that requires some serious thought, let us not make that change for the first flight. We'll think about it downstream.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bpcooper]

Two people have said there is one today at 5:30. Last NASA said, the next one would be Wednesday after the meeting. Is this new? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

I'd appreciate if NASA could use some of that $16B to produce a little more variance to NASATV. That motor-mouth talking the shuttle mission drill was nice for the first time but this third is getting boring...

 

[ltm_se]

"I'd appreciate if NASA could use some of that $16B to produce a little more variance to NASATV."<br /><br />I totally agree. More live from the Space Station would be nice. I love watching live telecast from ISS showing the earth when i go to sleep in the evening.

 

[emerrill]

"For one thing they will be replacing a SSME in the VAB."<br /><br />Do you know why they will be replacing the SSME? I had heard it was going to be moved on wednesday. Will they have a problem with the moisture since they cant move to the pad until after discovery is off, or are they just going to deal with 'drying it' when they can roll it off to the pad? <br /><br />Also, do you know when LC-39A is supposed to be back online?<br /><br />Thanks<br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[robot_pilot]

>I totally agree. More live from the Space Station would be nice.<br /> />I love watching live telecast from ISS showing the earth when i<br /> />go to sleep in the evening. <br /><br />Ditto on that! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> It was always amazing to me that we could watch thunderstorms from space, whilst sitting comfortably in our living rooms, or falling asleep... it always amazed me to no end when we could watch that.

 

[halman]

shuttle_guy,<br /><br />I was just looking over the block diagrams for the point sensor boxes, and it looks like the test signal is generated outside the orbiter. From what you have said earlier, the sensor seems to work fine until it is put in test mode, at which time anomialies show up. This has occured with more than one sensor component, if the tanking test last spring is included. I have to wonder if the problem lies in the wiring for the test procedeure. Is there any possibilty that might be so, or am I interpreting the block diagrams incorrectly?<br /><br />If the sensor reads dry prior to tanking, reads wet following tanking, it would seem to be working to me, in spite of test procedeures which are to make it read dry when it is wet. If a dry reading is indicated by line voltage, and a wet reading is indicated by a lower than line voltage, line voltage irregularities, of whatever nature, could prevent a dry reading. Corrosion on a connector would induce resistance, dropping line voltage, for instance. Troubleshooting component by component would not necessarially detect corrosion on a connector, if the corrosion is only on one side of the connector, and the test harness plugs into the other half of the connector.<br /><br />If I come up with any other lame brain ideas, I won't bother you with them!<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Ditto on that!<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Double ditto on that! I swear, if I have to put up with the STS-114 crew interviews every single evening for much longer, I'm gonna take to the six inch pipe holding my dish up with a hacksaw. Such has been the inccessant 'brain-washing' re-runs of this programming, that I'm half convinced I'm part of the '114 crew! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />On behalf of rocketwatcher, I would like to thank SG et.al for holding up the launch until he got back to see it.<br /><br />Also, in order to facilitate a positive result with the launch next week, I'd like to ask those with RTF bears to give the tummys a good rub then place them on their desks facing towards Pad 39B.<br /><br />I'd also like to ask Lunatic not to wear that silly plastic bracelet which, as we all know, was the <i><b>real</b></i> reason for an untraceable 'bad taste' disturbance in the Force which tripped the ECO sensor.<br /><br /><br />Teeheehee <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Nice one! Almost forgot about Atlantis - sinful, I know.<br /><br />How's Endeavour? Still without her SSMEs and front RCS etc.etc? Last picture I saw of her was along those lines.<br /><br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Great, thanks.<br /><br />I'm told rollover of Atlantis was slated for Noon, but there's rain potentially holding it up?

 

[emerrill]

"There will be a news conference, so they say. today at 5:30 local. The countdown is scheduled to pick up Friday."<br /><br />Would that put them to tanking on monday? Will that be a launch attempt or just a fueling with a possible attempt tuesday?<br /><br />Thanks<br />-Eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"... due to a IPR on a main landing gear tire pressure."</font><br /><br />Hey Mert! Toss me a can of Fix-A-Flat, wouldja?<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[emerrill]

Thanks for the info about the launch.<br /><br />What is IPR?<br /><br />Thanks<br />-Eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Testing]

SG, IF the T?S on Mondays allows a launch attempt. <br />What is the go-nogo criteria? Problem follows sensor or stays with circuit 2? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emerrill]

"What is the go-nogo criteria? Problem follows sensor or stays with circuit 2?"<br /><br />Or for that matter have they talked more about going with 3 of 4, IF they can prove that the one failure will not effect the other 3. While I know that isnt optimal, I've heard from other places that there are still some very serious discussion about going that route still in the works.<br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[astrophoto]

I wouldnt fly with 3. Knowing that they are not reliable after multiple tests means they need to fix the problem. They would not be able to guarantee that the other 3 will even be operational once launch gets underway and I'd hate to think what would happen if they failed to do their job if needed.

 

[Testing]

Somewhere in this thread yesterday there was a statement that they did not wish to go to 3 of 4 for RTF launch, possibly later. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emerrill]

"Somewhere in this thread yesterday there was a statement that they did not wish to go to 3 of 4 for RTF launch, possibly later."<br /><br />In that article they said they didn't want to because they had too much other stuff to do then to analize that at the time, so they were just waiting until they didnt have as much to do, but I'm sure its being talked over more now. <br /><br />Im not say I think they should, or will. But I would bet that there is more discussion going on about it then what some people make it sound like.<br /><br />-Eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bpcooper]

Yea, there was no rain around this morning. <br /><br />Is the tanking test Monday, or does it start Monday night and go into Tuesday morning. There seemed to be some confusion over whether it moved up a day, or whether it was just starting late Monday... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-Ben</p> </div>

 

[emerrill]

"If the problem can be shown to be stable i.e. not a potential failure in another ckt. or in the test ckt."<br /><br />Correct me if im wrong, but I interpret that to meen that they will go with 3 of 4 IF they can prove that it is an isolated problem. Or am I just reading that wrong? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emerrill]

"As of now the program seems unwilling to go back to 3 of 4 on the ECOs probably a big reason for that is public preseption"<br /><br />Yeah, thats what it seems like to me. It seems from what ive been able to find, that it could be justified from an engineering stand point, but that it would look horrible to the public/media, and that is deffinatly not what NASA needs right now, they have already been roasted by the whole scrub incedent.<br /><br />-eric <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Apparently they'll go with a normal count before scrubbing at the stable replenish stage. Sound right SG?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

><br />Yeah, thats what it seems like to me. It seems from what ive been able to find, that it could be justified from an engineering stand point, but that it would look horrible to the public/media, and that is deffinatly not what NASA needs right now, they have already been roasted by the whole scrub incedent. <<br /><br />Not to mention that past public perception, the 4 out of 4 requirement was 'bitterly' defended by several key people...and you can bet they've had a say in where NASA goes in regards to this launch.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"it [flying with 3/4 sensors] would look horrible to the public/media"</font><br /><br />I disagree, IMO media has been bombarding those NASA guys with guestions that almost beg them to just fly with 3/4. Everybody want to see that thing flying, even if it requires relaxing the criterias <i>back to original</i>.